The Good Phight: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

The anatomy of 10,000

A lot of talk has been given to the Phillies being the first team in the history of pro sports to reach 10,000 losses.  It's a Jason Stark fact that everyone has latched on to.  All that means is that is is useless and full of fluff.  Sure, this has been a pretty inept franchise.  Bad enough to lose 10,000 games, but good enough for people to still pay to see it.  I am not sure how that actually works, but somewhere, DNL is trying to dig up a nonagenarian that can claim that they saw 7000 of those losses.  

Anyway, most of it means NOTHING to us, but we live in Philly, and Philly fans relish losing.  They take pride in it and want to think their pain is worse than any other.  So, here is an era breakdown of the futility of this franchise.  After a slow start, we actually had a winning record for a while.  Go figure.

Star-divide

Let's start with the basics.

Wins: 8808
Losses: 9999
Winning percentage: .468

If we could go undefeated for the next 7 and 1/3rd seasons, well, we'd hit 10,000 wins before we hit 10,000 losses.  And we'd likely have a couple of WS rings.  I consider that a win-win scenario.  This season has actually raised our career winning percentage up 0.0001489 points.  .470 winning percentage, HERE WE COME!

In 1883, the Phils started off pretty poorly at 17-81 and then went 39-73 the next year.  This can be considered their "bad April" cause it was all uphill after that.  It's tough to go down when you have a .2667 winning percentage.

But the Phils got hot.  And I mean, Paris Hilton HOTT.  They then reeled off 4 straight winning seasons and 13 of their next 17. Teams PHEARED the Phightins at the turn of the century.  After their 1902 season they were sporting a .524 winning percentage and showing the rest of the world what it meant to live in the birthplace of United States.  

Sadly, that was the apex of this once glorious franchise.  They had a rough couple of years and flirted with dipping below .500 after the 1906 season, but showed their resiliency and topped out in 1917 after a 87-65 season with a team .515 winning percentage.  Of course, this being the Phils, it didn't take them long to wipe away the great memory of being a winner.  Whatever happened right before we hit the roaring 20s shook baseball forever.  The Red Sox traded Ruth to the Yankees, the White Sox threw the World Series and the Phormidable Phightins went into the tank.  The world was shocked.

1921.  That was it.  That was the last time this franchise had a winning record.  Sure, it lasted a few games in 1922, but nobody cares about mid season.  The Phils went 51-103 in 1921 to close out  with a 0.50009 winning percentage.  If only the franchise folded up then, we could all, at least for the last 80+ years, feel like winners.  Alas, 1922 season rolled around and the Phillies would never see the blue sky above .500 again.  In fact, the fall was pretty dramatic as the franchise entered the "Dark Ages". We have no evidence that they actually existed then except for players like Chuck Klein we think once played for us, but there is no actual proof of.  At least, none that we'll believe.  

Over the next 3 decade, baseball in Philadelpia was like brushing your teeth with an SOS pad.  Sure, it got them clean, but it was painful and probably did more damage than it helped.  And after 1948, the franchise hit rock bottom.  In 27 years, they went from a team with a winning record to a team with a .445 winning percentage at 4254-5305, the lowest it would ever be.  It took a lot of work to get there and many 100+ loss season, but, our boys did it and we should be proud.  

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the Phillies had a young kid who was on that bottoming out team, and had something to say about all the losing going on around here.  Richie "Whitey" Ashburn was a young whippersnapper on that 1948 team.  He took this franchise by it's collar and lifted us up.  The Phils enjoyed their best decade since the "teens", although they would still have a losing record overall.  In fact, the Phillies would have 5 consecutive decades with overall losing records until they reached the 1970s (bring back disco).  Amazingly enough, the Phillies would then have winning records for 3 of the next 4 decades.  

Decades are arbitrary, but let's look at them anyway.

Best
1890s: 743-629 .542
1910s: 762-717 .515
2000s: 620-601 .508
1970s: 812-801 .503
1980s: 783-780 .501
1950s: 767-773 .498
1900s: 709-752 .485
1880s: 390-424 .479
1960s: 759-843 .474
1990s: 732-823 .471
1930s: 581-943 .381
1940s: 584-951 .380
1920s: 566-962 .370
Worst

As you can see, we are enjoying the best baseball Philadelphia has seen since the beginning of the last century.  Do we REALLY have a right to complain?  

Now, for posterity, let's get a count:

100+ win seasons:
2 (1976, 1977)

90-99 win seasons:
9 (1899, 1915, 1916, 1950, 1964, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1993)

80-89 win seasons:
28

70-79 win seasons:
30

60-69 win seasons:
25

50-59 win seasons:
19 (includes 1981 and 1994)

Below 50 win seasons:
12 (includes 1883 and 1884 where full seasons weren't realized yet)

100 loss seasons:
14 (includes 1941 with 111 losses)

#10,000 is right there, but let's take a quick reality check.  Most of us didn't watch baseball before WW2 since we didn't exist yet or barely knew what a baseball was.  The first half of the Phillies history was a mess.  But, since 1949, the Phillies have gone 4473-4621 for a .492 winning percentage.  Is that good?  Heck no, but it isn't nearly as miserable as everyone wants it to seem to be and that is pretty much almost anyone can remember anyway.  We need more championships, but the recent history isn't nearly as grim as 10,000 makes it seem.

0 recs  |  Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
That the team had a thirty-year stretch in which they were well under .400, just blows my mind. How did they survive? Why did they survive? Who subjected themselves to that misery?

by dajafi on Jul 13, 2007 9:33 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
So whenever anybody from any other city, any fan of any other team, asks us Philly fans why we are the way we are...I for one will just point 'em to this post detailing our century-plus of phutility. Awesome.

by das411 on Jul 16, 2007 2:13 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
A major point was that we can't use that as an excuse since this team has been pretty much .500 since 1950.  Did you watch baseball before then?  I sure as heck didn't.  I am not saying I am happy with .500 ball, but there is no excuse for acting like losers other than just wearing is a badge of honor.  Philly does that good.

by jonk on Jul 17, 2007 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
Great post jonk.  Did the team get any kind of championship or awards for its awesome years in the 1890s?  I don't know much about the game back then - was there something other than a World Series?

by David S. Cohen on Jul 16, 2007 12:16 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
I think each player on the pennant-winning team got a baby calf, a medicine ball, half-price railway tickets anywhere in the 43 states, and one of those old-timey bicycles...

by dajafi on Jul 16, 2007 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
Turns out that even those good years got them mediocrity.  Here are their NL league rankings before 1900:

1883 - 8
1884 - 6
1885 - 3
1886 - 4
1887 - 2
1888 - 3
1889 - 4
1890 - 3
1891 - 4
1892 - 4
1893 - 4
1894 - 4
1895 - 3
1896 - 8
1897 - 10
1898 - 6
1899 - 3

Not consistently bad but not consistently good either.  Ring a bell?

by David S. Cohen on Jul 16, 2007 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: The anatomy of 10,000
ah, but we outlasted a lot of the teams that beat us out in the late 19th century. teams like the Cleveland Spiders and old Baltimore Orioles were bought out by wealthier owners from other cities and bled dry of all their talent before collapsing (quite spectacularly, in Cleveland's case).

our consistent mediocrity was actually a pretty good defense mechanism in those early years: don't be so good that you draw attention to yourself, but don't be so bad that deep-pocketed owners use you as an expensive farm team. although we ended up doing basically that in the bad years with guys from Pete Alexander to Kirby Higbe.

by perfectdepth on Jul 17, 2007 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.
Start posting about the Phillies »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

3493405934_78d595f1a1_small
Not Philly Enough

Recent FanPosts

Small
I'm tired of the money argument.
Small
trade
Small
Predictions of minors call ups' for next year
Greg_luzinski_small
Phillies Breakfast Links, November 5, 2009: Too Depressed to Eat Breakfast, Ma Edition
Boys_small
Next Year!
Small
Crazy Phillies Fan Who Offered Sex for World Series Tickets Tells All!
Angels-stadium-angels-helmet_small
Larry Bowa comes close to call the Phillies cheaters
Boys_small
STFU You
Sunflower_small
World Series Simulation, Game #6

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Blog Lords

Wholecamels_small WholeCamels

Boys_small jonk

Dsc04697_small David S. Cohen

Meltingface_small dajafi

Colevatar_small Matt Swartz

Phillyfriar_small PhillyFriar